Ethics with regard to tulpa creation.

[J.Iscariot]

Interesting points, but I simply cannot associate with your logic on a personal level. I mean, I understand what you just advanced, but I cannot integrate it to my being because of my bias and other beliefs. Of course, my point of view is as lacking as any other, it's not complete by any means and what has been posted with the presented ideology was more a thought current than an actual outlook or theory on tulpamancy, one I've had in mind for a good while and I've been trying to figure out why I have the virtues I do not deserve, even though I had created my tulpa as the absolute opposite of what she is (I am guessing subconscious reasons but how arrogant would it be to act in a way that implies any more than what's in front of me). Fortunately, I did understand the notion you put in place in the post I am answering to with this one, so in some ways, it makes some sense, but with my beliefs, it's impossible for me to associate to it.

 

Oh well, nothing else to see for me with that sort of mindsets, I suppose.

[waffles]

I guess I might be jumping in on this a little late, and I can't really respond to everything that's been said already. But I do like this topic.

 

Judas and the Free Wills: is free will relevant, ethically? I don't think that it is. I mean you'd better hope not, philosophically speaking, because it doesn't really exist. But even in a practical sense, not being able to choose your life doesn't matter if you like your life, right? It sort of depends how you do your metaethics, but at least from a utilitarian viewpoint I think this is true. Of course, that's not to say that tulpas don't have some choice in some matters; perhaps not in the body they're created in, but then neither do hosts. Not about who they share their head with, but then neither do hosts. The host might not apportion any life choices to them, I guess, but at least from what I've seen, the more a tulpa interacts directly with their host's world, the more influence they are granted over it.

 

I don't think that it's fair to say that tulpas are always bent to their host's will. This may be true at first, but I think it lessens with time and development. It might be that a tulpa and host agree on most or all things, but I think that's more a consequence of the conditions than absolute brainwashing. There's no particular reasons that beliefs should differ when connected via telepathy.

 

Is tulpa creation selfish? I maintain that I've given more than I've taken. Not the time to create her, but, having created her, I've certainly given over a lot of "my" time to let her do her own things. I don't think it's unfair to say that we share a life, half and half. Equals? I'm not sure. And I don't lose out, in terms of wellbeing. It's a net gain for both of us. Whether or not you recast my motivations as being selfish here, whether I actually care about her or do "selfless" things to satisfy my altruistic tendencies, I don't know. But for any measure that external friendship is unselfish I think I can show you something similar internally.

 

 

 

Joshu: To say that there are "unethical reasons" for creation is something of a misnomer. Again, it depends on your metaethics. But I think that any sane view has the result as being ethical or unethical, not the action. That's rather deontological. In that regard, it really doesn't matter why you do it as long as you make a net gain, and I do think that people do tend to. Of course these things are hard to quantify. I think that hosts usually gain from creating a tulpa. Whether or not their tulpas live net negative lives or not is still out there; I think that on balance a tulpa's condition will tend towards their host's, so if you're antinatalist like Joshu, you are making a net loss. Raising the average but still on net losing. I'm not very antinatalist though, so I'll stick to it being positive.

 

 

 

And not entirely related, but:

I understand what you just advanced, but I cannot integrate it to my being because of my bias and other beliefs

I find this a weird thing to say. If you know about your biases then they shouldn't be a factor. If you know about your beliefs that conflict, then, well, you just disagree.

[Luminesce]

I appreciate acknowledging your own biases. And my beliefs are different from basically anyone elses' on this forum and I get along fine. Perhaps that's because one's belief system often entails how you think about others', though. Anyways, it's just acknowledging another way of thinking as legitimate but choosing for whatever personal reasons to differ.

[Drakaina]

-What do you consider an ethical reason to create a tulpa and why?

I can think of only one reason. To better yourself, your circumstances and/or your surroundings.

Being selfish isn't unethical, it's nature. It becomes unethical when your selfishness places another being into a bad situation. I think it is entirely ethical to create a tulpa to help you with things you fall short on, like emotional understanding, or as just a friend. It's not uncommon for individuals to latch on to others for friendship whether the other party wants them to or not. Yet we don't call what they're doing unethical, just rude.

I know creating a life form vs latching onto an existing one is a little different, but I believe not enough to void the analogy.

-Are there any motivations behind creating a tulpa that you consider unethical?

Romantic purposes always struck me as wrong. That and creating a tulpa because you want them to be someone specific. To me this is dismissing the tulpa's individuality and their right to grow organically.

In general reasons that limit a tulpa's individuality, or displays intent to disregard/circumvent their free will (as with the romantic partner example), I believe are unethical.

[waffles]

I appreciate acknowledging your own biases. And my beliefs are different from basically anyone elses' on this forum and I get along fine. Perhaps that's because one's belief system often entails how you think about others', though. Anyways, it's just acknowledging another way of thinking as legitimate but choosing for whatever personal reasons to differ.

 

Well, "choosing for personal reasons" is either disagreeing because of underlying beliefs or wilfully ignoring superior evidence. I mean, I kind of get it, like, the chain of reasoning might be legitimate but the priors not. Still, it seems like an odd way of saying it. If it were underlying antinatalist beliefs that caused you to differ, you could say so. But just saying "personal beliefs" doesn't really bely anything. I mean it's not as if you have to discuss until you agree on things, but for me that's the natural objective.

[Luminesce]

If only that were the way it was. Trust me, I'd love nothing more than a world where everybody discussed until they came to a perfect understanding. However, the difference you're looking for lies in personal experience. It is not impossible to completely understand why somebody feels a certain way or believes what they do, and still decide that's not how it should be for you. People live in different conditions, for example, so a richer individual may sympathize with someone who must be frugal in their shopping while knowing that their situation is different.

 

But if you're talking about times when the situations are the same rather than different - there's no such thing. You can get close, sure, but no one ever lives in exactly the same conditions as another because they don't occupy the same mind or body. (Even tulpas have different personalities/identities than their hosts in some way too) And we aren't even close when it comes to tulpas. I know why neither Iscariot, nor most of the forum, thinks like me or sometimes can even understand my beliefs. But I really think my beliefs are some of the most sound around. But, not everybody lives in the same 'mental environment' that I do, and my beliefs may not work for them (or they just don't know how to change theirs). And I can accept that. My goal is usually to reach mutual understanding so that people know they have the option to think like me, or in different ways in general. I don't care how they choose to think, just that they know they've got options.

[waffles]

It is not impossible to completely understand why somebody feels a certain way or believes what they do, and still decide that's not how it should be for you. People live in different conditions, for example, so a richer individual may sympathize with someone who must be frugal in their shopping while knowing that their situation is different.

 

You're using "feeling" and "belief" interchangeably which I think belies something important. What does sympathy have to do with it? As for the first thing, yes, you can understand completely why someone believes what they do, but if you don't then agree then you must also understand why they're wrong.

 

 

But if you're talking about times when the situations are the same rather than different - there's no such thing. You can get close, sure, but no one ever lives in exactly the same conditions as another because they don't occupy the same mind or body.

 

Why should the conditions matter? You're very defeatist about it. I approach disagreement as a problem and agreement as a necessary resolution. In that sense I don't like to throw my hands up and say, "Everyone is different, agreement is impossible." Beliefs are in effect speculative facts and I only want to deal in truth. In that regard it's in my own interest to abstract away conditions that don't matter. Actually, no conditions matter. Your economic background shouldn't matter to what you believe, because we all live in the same world. Even for something as abstract and intangible as tulpas this is the case, I think. So long as you start from the same ideas of what a tulpa is, etc.; and if you don't, that in itself is a point of disagreement.

 

I might be speaking in slightly too general terms, but, like I said, you're defeatist. "Different circumstances" are things to be abstracted away, to be defeated. You should be like Judas and notice your biases, but the point of noticing them is so you can obviate them! Likewise for anything else.

 

 

 

That's not to say that personal experience doesn't hinder an "everyone should agree" goal. In my experience, though, and from my guesses, the main barriers to people agreeing are mainly two very different things. Firstly, that exposition of everything needed to agree requires more effort and better communication that you have. Secondly, that admitting that you're wrong and changing your mind is hard. In truth I think that you can drill down to sources of disagreement quite easily. And if both people are (hah) perfectly rational beings, things like "personal experience" only continue to be a source of differing beliefs if one person doesn't trust the other, once all is told.

[Luminesce]

I used the word feeling because I felt like it, I wasn't talking about emotions. I'm pretty sure "I see why you feel that way" can be used in response to a belief, though I suppose the belief would have to be emotionally charged. Anyways, I put an "or" in there.

 

In those different conditions, the richer person believes spending money isn't a big deal, while the poorer person believes it is. What's missing here? Accounting for the other person's conditions. Taking into account their life, their circumstances, their reality. Here we go again..

 

Reality is subjective. There are objective truths (probably), and we can discuss those, and we can rectify incorrect beliefs on them. But the majority of most peoples' lives are completely subjective. Because every person experiences life differently (though you missed what I guess I only hinted at, that people can have close enough experiences that their beliefs align), people have different beliefs on "subjective truths". There's a fine line between arguing objectivity and arguing subjectivity. And that line is a chaotic place of opinions and emotions confused with fact and extrapolations on what appears objectively true but is in fact only a more encompassing subjective belief... Anyways, my point is, there are subjective beliefs.

 

Honestly you somehow narrowly avoided understanding that, but it's pretty obvious when pointed out. Say somebody is playing a video game with you. In the game, they get killed suddenly by an enemy that neither of you saw, and get angry at the game. You however don't think it's good reason to be angry - it's just a game, etc. etc. So you believe they shouldn't be angry, but in trying to tell them that, they disagree and say it's a perfectly good reason to be angry.

 

So you want to argue objective truths with them now? The game is meant to entertain them and no more, so negative feelings are illogical and not how you should feel (and if it makes you feel that way, you should stop playing, which they'll also deny). You simply weren't observant enough to notice the enemy, and you were killed for it. You could use this experience to try and do better next time, or pass it off as being unlucky, but anger is unproductive. Blah blah. I'm not even going to dignify the rest of this hypothetical with its conclusion - I've got a couple of friends who are beyond hopeless rageaholics when it comes to any game.

 

Maybe you can be objective there. I don't think so, but that's because I don't believe human bias is something to be abolished, as would be an ideal to most science-minded individuals. Regardless of what you think, most people aren't going to accept your "objective" beliefs as replacements to theirs. In their reality, being angry is a logical response and they're going to stay that way. In your reality, it's not. And you will try to use logical, objective truths to convey that, but in reality your belief on the matter is just as subjective as theirs. It's based on logic and maybe objective truths, sure, but the fact that it could ever have been another way is what makes it subjective. Your personal subjective feelings being influenced by what you think of as fact. Regardless of whether it's fact or not (which is usually debatable), your own belief won't be objective. Objective-based, at best.

 

Anyways, I won't stop you from trying to come to objective-based conclusions on what to believe with others. I try and do the same. But I also accept that subjectivity is the only way we as humans can perceive anything. And following from that, that some people simply don't care about certain objective truths in regards to their subjective beliefs. Again I try to influence peoples' beliefs that I see as harmful or unproductive (especially when asked for help) with more beneficial or productive ones, and being a logical person those are usually objective-based too. I'll never claim them as such, though, only as beneficial and productive. That's why my relationship to my tulpas doesn't consider the problems many other logic-minded people have, such as the nature of their existence and apparent-sentience and so on. I think about those things like anyone else (moreso really, I've been at this for years), but they don't affect how we relate to each other. Because I reached a rather meta conclusion in my search for logical and reasonable answers - the best belief is the one that will serve me the best, not the one that makes the most sense. I will of course always try to keep the most-sense-making beliefs in mind parallel to my specifically chosen subjective ones, but they aren't as important to me. (Though the subjective beliefs may be reworked over time in a manner similar to attempted objective ones)

 

 

I don't think anyone realizes how much I want the argument to be over every time I post one of these textwalls. I don't like arguing, I just want them to say "Oh I see your point of view now, and I will choose to believe X" and be done with it. But don't let that stop you if you still don't understand and want to, of course.

(And if you're trying to make me understand, to be honest I always feel like I understand the other person in discussions like these. If I don't understand, I ask questions. I could not know I don't understand, but I take it upon myself rather than rely on others to make sure that doesn't happen, it's just how I am. I'm really not a good scientist, huh?)

[waffles]

In those different conditions, the richer person believes spending money isn't a big deal, while the poorer person believes it is. What's missing here? Accounting for the other person's conditions. Taking into account their life, their circumstances, their reality. Here we go again..

 

Reality is subjective. There are objective truths (probably), and we can discuss those, and we can rectify incorrect beliefs on them. But the majority of most peoples' lives are completely subjective.

 

Well, the whole idea of objective truth is important, but more to the point, what does it mean if I say, "Spending money is a big deal"? I would counter that, no, that's completely meaningless until you formulate it in some objective way. And that any discussion worth having is about actual well-formulated objective statements (or what formulations are useful, etc). Hell, I'd say the same thing about the video game thing. I don't really care about discussing whether "video games are a good reason to get angry"; it's easy to make that discussion objective though. Just agree on a definition of what you mean by "good reason". For example, if you recast it in terms of whether getting angry at such things will increase or decrease the person's overall welfare, you can get into objectives and cite studies and everything and that's where you want to be.

 

So although it seems obvious, what is a "subjective belief"? I don't think they really exist, or should exist. The examples that you give of "subjective beliefs" just seem to be poorly-defined statements. The world is "subjective" in a sense but in general I think we do a pretty good job of experiencing it the same. Differences in experience tend to come from being in different places at different times, and not by some distorting glass.

 

 

Maybe you can be objective there. I don't think so, but that's because I don't believe human bias is something to be abolished, as would be an ideal to most science-minded individuals. Regardless of what you think, most people aren't going to accept your "objective" beliefs as replacements to theirs. In their reality, being angry is a logical response and they're going to stay that way. In your reality, it's not. And you will try to use logical, objective truths to convey that, but in reality your belief on the matter is just as subjective as theirs. It's based on logic and maybe objective truths, sure, but the fact that it could ever have been another way is what makes it subjective.

 

Forgetting about the example and just talking generally, yeah, my belief is subjective, naturally. That's kind of why I want to compare to other people, to discuss, and so on. I'm not evangelising my own superior beliefs. Obviously they're my best guess but I don't have to think they're right. On the contrary, I'm happy to argue in order to get convinced otherwise, as happens a lot of the time. About half the time? I don't think my beliefs are "objective" in a certain sense. I'm well aware of how they came about, kinda, and how confident I am in them, etc. And logic itself has little place outside of subjects that are actually logical.

[Luminesce]

I don't know, I'm kind of confused at how you keep bringing up points against me. Every time you point out something else it seems.. Relevant, meaningful, something like that, yet I can also explain it away (to myself at least). That's much more interesting to me right now than the actual subject. Maybe you're just good at arguing?

 

Anyways, yes, that first two paragraphs' point makes sense. I understand your point of view there. But then I think, "Humans aren't objective by nature though. We don't have extremely precise beliefs, we have blurry subjective ones that are influenced by misconceptions as much as they are fact. Only some humans hold objective truth as one of their highest values, many others draw the line somewhere before that point."

 

Also the "distorted glass" comes from all of the time we spent in different times and places. You develop your own filter for viewing reality through over time.

 

I guess you can say logic doesn't have to do with developing subjective beliefs. There's some similar word for it though. I don't choose what I believe on a personal basis usually, I follow very logical explanations to a point where I believe I understand at a relatively objective level and then modify it from that point to fit my self. But, I dunno, everyone could probably say essentially the same thing about their own process. It's just a sliding scale where I'm further to the logical side I guess. Anyways, there's a difference in how I and most others think that entails more neutrality/unbiased thinking, although obviously not purely so. I don't remember why this was relevant. But inversely that implies that others are less neutral/unbiased in creating their beliefs, meaning they're not objective at all. Right? I dunno I'm tired and this conversation got too far away from the original for me to formulate relevant thoughts anymore. So I'll just compliment you on your arguing skill/ethics. I believe that strange feeling I get from reading your replies is the result of being responded to with legitimate and logical counterpoints.

 

Or I'm just reaally tired, and arguing with a guy called waffles about the subjectivity of objective truths and how that relates to the ethics of sentient imaginary friends.